DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ritu Paul w/o Mr. Joseph Solomon, Flat No.2022, Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 67, Mohali, District SAS Nagar.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 The Micromax Mobiles through its Manager, Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana, India.

2.                 The Countrywide Telecom through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager, SCO 53-54-55, 1^st Floor, Chamber No.4, Sector 17-D, (Opp. G.P.O), Chandigarh

3.                 The Vighnesh Services (Authorised Service Centre) through its Manager/Proprietor/Authorised person SCO No.189-190, Sector -34A, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  None for complainant

                        OPs already exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Mrs. Ritu Paul has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

“(a)      The O.P.’s may kindly be ordered to refund the price of the mobile phone. And/or

(b)               The O.P.’s may kindly be directed to repair the Mobile Phone within warranty period and free of cost. And/or

(c)                The O.P.’s may kindly be directed to pay the sum of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. And/or

(d)              The O.P.’s may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental harassment and business loss. And/or

(e)                Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased a (Micromax Q7 dual sim) mobile phone from opposite party No.2 vide bill dated 16.7.2011 (Mark A) and paid Rs.4,699/-.  However, according to the complainant, in the month of September, i.e. within a few weeks, the handset started giving problem in charging.  She reported the matter to opposite party No.2 but it refused to entertain. 

                   According to the complainant, thereafter she of her own searched for the authorised service centre and thus approached opposite party No.3 on 1.10.2011.  Opposite party No.3 gave her the estimate of repair at Rs.3,900/- (Mark B), though the handset was well within warranty.  Opposite party No.3 refused to repair the handset till the amount was deposited.  The complainant thereafter served a legal notice dated 2.11.2011 but to no avail. 

According to the complainant, failure on the part of the opposite parties to repair the handset amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint has been filed claiming the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 on the date fixed despite service, hence it was proceeded against ex parte.

4.                           Summons sent for the service of opposite party No.2 were received back with the report of refusal.  Since refusal is good service, and none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 on the date fixed, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

5.                           None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 on the date fixed despite service.  Hence, it was also proceeded against exparte.

6.                           On 14.11.2012, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the complainant.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainant. 

7.                           We have gone through the documents on record.

8.                           Mark A is the copy of the invoice vide which the complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2  and paid Rs.4,699/-.  According to the complainant, within a few weeks it started giving problem of charging.  Mark B is the customer job card dated 1.10.2011 where, under the column ‘nature of complaint’ it is clearly mentioned ‘No charging’.  According to the complainant, opposite party No.3 demanded a sum of Rs.3,900/- for repairing the handset though the same was within warranty.  In support of her contentions, the complainant has filed her duly sworn affidavit. 

9.                           The opposite parties did not appear to controvert the averments of the complainant.  Hence the stand of the complainant goes unrebutted.

10.                       We are of the opinion that failure on the part of the opposite parties to repair the handset, which was within the warranty period,  amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the present complaint needs to be allowed.

11.                       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

(i)                to refund the price of the handset in question i.e. Rs.4,699/- to the complainant

(ii)             to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant

(iii)           to pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

12.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

13.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.11.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER